Esoteric does have its place in knowledge. Yes Spirit is mind, body, matter. It is the actuality of all things. You can call it God in fact. It arises in all things and experiences in all things. YOU are your Ego but the true ground is Spirit. It is at the beginning and yet not at the beginning because it is at the end

Would it be the criticism on Kant from Hegel's point of view? — Corvus

Yes. You should know some of Kant before reading Hegel

The Science of Logic is very difficult. I love it but I have yet to finish it lol. And Ive never read a commentary on Hegel so I can't recommend one. You should read the Phenomenology of Mind [Spirit] however. I have not found anything in Hegel that doesn't make sense to me. No contradictions. It does take a lot of reading and also a lot of mental work to start to get what he is saying because he doesn't spell his whole philosophy out right away. Only those willing to run with him will win his prize

Such religious fever happens in all cultures because each religion can't make everyone it touches good. I'm wondering about basic faith as a state in learning though. When mathemticians started doubting parts of Euclid, did that doubt require some kind of intellectual faith in order to go on?

I don't think many writers of this forum would say "give up all reason and follow faith blindly without consideration of custom or common sense!"

So the question is whether faith plays any role in reason, in the life of the mind, and in philosophy

How do you know that it's unjustified? Like I said earlier, you're more certain than I am. The only suffering here is Abraham's inferred psychological suffering which you seem to be extremely concerned with — BitconnectCarlos

Are you saying Isaac deserved the death penalty for a crime/sin? Otherwise he was innocent and surely suffered, as his father suddenly bound him.

In the Book of Hebrews the writer says Abraham thought God would resurrect Isaac. The command was still to murder

"Kant rated dialectic higher- and this is among his greatest merits- for he freed it from the seeming arbitrariness which it possesses from the standpoint of ordinary thought and exhibited it as a necessary function of reason. Because dialectic was held to be merely the art of practising deceptions and producing illusions, the assumpton was made forthwith that it is only a spurious game, the whole of its power resting solely on concealment of the deceit and that its results are obtained only surreptitiously and are a subjective illusion. True, Kant's expositions in the antimonies of pure reason, when closely examined as they will be at length in the course of this work, do not indeed deserve any great praise; but the general idea on which he based his expositions and which he vindicated, is the objectivity of the illusion and the necessity of the contradiction which belongs to the nature of thought determinations: primarily, it is true, with the significance that these determinations are applied by reason to things in themselves; but their nature is precisely what they are in reason and with reference to what is intrinsic or in itself. This result, grasped in its positive aspect, is nothing else but the inner negativity of the determinations as their self-moving soul, the principle of all natural and spiritual life." Science of Logic, Introduction

"In this regard it must be remarked that the assertion that the [Kantian] categories by themselves are empty is certainly correct in the sense that we ought not to rest content with them and the totality which they form (the logical Idea), but to advance to the real domains of Nature and Spirit. This advance, however, should not be interpreted as meaning that the logical Idea comes to receive an alien content that stems from outside it; on the contrary, it is the proper activity of the logical Idea to determine itself further and unfold itself into Nature and Spirit." Paragraph 43, pg 86 in the lesser Logic "The Encyclopaedia Logic", translated by Geraets, Suchting, and Harris, 1991, Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.

The dualism between mind and body is real in Hegel, but at the completion of Spirit all is One, as it always was. Few point this out, but Hegel has matter "sublate" mind as well as mind sublating body. We are one with Spirit so we are in the creating of the world, but not to the denial of us being immediate bodies within Nature. I was gathering some Hegel quotes last night. I will post them latter in the day

Traditional conservatism respects Congress as the supreme law of the land. The executive and judiiciary are there to keep balance. Neither have more power than the other. State soverrenty applies to each state for their own culture and laws. When laws from Congress contradict a local law, the local statute must give way for Federal rights. Or they can go to court. Freedom and union. Now and forever

When you say that principles and mathematical axioms are the transcendental constructs of reason alone, I am not sure what you mean. Those principles, it seems to me, at their most basic are abstracted from reflecting on an analyzing our experiences, and then once established may be elaborated in accordance with the entailments implicit in them, entailments which are discovered progressively by doing (experience) as seems to be the case with mathematics.

So, I don't see reason as a disembodied thing that can stand alone — Janus

Kant seemed to do this 'removal of the mind from it's environment' thing. Reason can twist inward where it can no longer feel truth. This is why The Critique of Judgment is sentimental. He misses certainty that doesn't rely on a spurious infinity

Rosen says it is impossible to understand Hegel without understanding Plato and Aristotle. Do you agree? Why is it the case? — Corvus

Hegel uses terms from Aristotle and Platonism all the time. The "universal" he speaks of often. He turns things around though. In the Science of Logic you have there he says quality comes before quantity, which is the reverse of how Aristotle is usually interpreted. Aristotle seemed to think, in thought, there is first quantity or "matter" and that it is marked and structured by a form, which in turn is derived from a Form which is in the mind of the Prime Mover (or Movers). Simple, right? Hegel's take is influenced by Kant; quality is phenomena. Yes the world is matter. The Left Hegelians were correct! And so were the Right Hegelians after him. They both took part of the paradox and ran with it. Hegel tried to bring contradiction into a non-dual unity where there is no room left for contradiction. The latter becomes paradox, mystery, miracle, and we learn what is truly worth knowing.

This is why i used the term "bi-reality" in the other thread. It's dualism submerged in unity. We create the world (philosophy), and the world thru atoms make us (science). Reconciling this is the goal of Hegel's entire body of work. More on this latter..

He has the 1) unknowable, 2) the knowable by science, 3) those things known by faith without a consulting reason (laws of the heart), 4) and ethical life. None of them relate by causality to another one. "Cause" is only in the scientific realm. Hope and faith are left to stand on their own along with a moral life goal. The unknowable stands as something enticing for the intellect and is described dualistically as noumena and the -thing-in-itself (i have yet to grasp the distinction). But we can never reach it. We are to pretend there is design in beauty even while not allowing the mind to really believe this. All that is just disconnected for me personally. Some people regard him as the greatest philosopher ever

Spiritual, philosophical, mystical.. these are the same thing seen from different angles. Doesn't "phenomena" imply that it is mystical, and doesn't mystical imply miracles (miracles from the spiritual)?

A desire for facts and a desire for truth are not necessarily the same thing. There is something spiritual, which nothing other than that reality is mystical.

Can they explain the origin of the universe? Science has a real problem with origin when the practical side of a scientist turns speculative.

'A truer image of the world, I think, is obtained by picturing things as entering into the stream of time from an eternal world outside, than from a view which regards time as the devouring tyrant of all that is. Both in thought and in feeling, even though time be real, to realize the unimportence of time is the gate to wisdom.. Whoever wishes to see the world truly, to rise in thought above the tyranny of practical desires, must learn to overcome the difference of attitude towards past and future and to survey the whole stream of time in one comprehensive vision."

Why save people by science from death if they can't go out and philosophy afterwards?

Thanks for the conversation

Truth is neither subjective nor objective, but just how things are. — Banno

That's what objective means. I don't think you have a proper appreciation of what philosophy is about

As such it doesn't give a fuck about what you or I believe, faithfully or otherwise — Banno

Faith can work miracles. A good mind believes in miracles

If reason is controlled by will, even yet truth controls both — Banno

Whether truth is subjective, or instead, objective has been answered differetly throughout history. If it lives only in minds then truth is subjective. But material objects follow the "law of Nature" as essentially logic. Logic can't be taken out of any practice performed by a human. (But in mystcism, logic will have to be tamprred with in order to express insights of the mystical) And when thoughts agree with the law inside each one, then truth becomes objective

You don't seem to have a burning desire to know truth. Or maybe you do. Maybe you are satisfied. Smaller size truths like those found by science can't make for a substitute philosophy however.

"Reason is a harmonizing, controlling force rather than a creative one. Even in the purely logical realm, it is insight that first arriverà at what is new." Bertrand Russel in Mysticism and Logic

Reason and will are indeed different faculties. The former is the "I' in, or as, each person. But will is in complete control of reason

Accepting the results of science is an important part of being a modern adult. Medicine and those who create them go back far back into haze of history. They are venerable. However, i don't see why the law of the excluded middle is violated when something supported science can't be reconciled with philosophy. How can you tell me that physic equations should be allowed to be rewinded back 14 *billion* years. We can't even form an idea of a hundred thousand properly, let alone a billion. And how can you know all the forces that were acting in the universe, say 10 billions years? Are you really going to say you know all the universal factors acting at time 10 billion BC? Inuition and reason go hand and hand. Reason by itself is insanity, pure will

Neither: I adjust my "beliefs" until the "contradiction" dissolves — 180 Proof

"There are, he [Bergson] says, 'two profoundly different ways of knowing a thing. The first implies that we move round the object: the second that we enter into it.'" Bertrand Russell in Mystcism and Logic

If the good in the world is seen as united, as a body of goodness bringing good to the world, we could say it is the historical manifestation of Plato's "Form of the Good". In mystical moments the truth cannot be contained by the mind and is interpreted as infinite. Beliefs and docttines cone about by Interpetatiom.

Everyone has the right to form there own interpretations. This is a natural right. A peaceful society is all that can limit it

The laws of the heart are hard to decifer, so i can't declare i know Kant's inner reflections, but his system for me leaves something missing.

What if you found a real contradiction at the heart of all you believe. Do you 1) go with faith, or 2) go with dialetheism

Or 3) go with both, or 4th neither

Of course. Hegel claimed Aristotle as his own, but his logo-becoming theology is the reverse of Aquinas's world view. Kant is opposed to it too. Kant kind of just rests on morality and says "let's 1) be moral, 2) do science to figure out the assumed (critique of judgment) to be designed world. Aquinas says "the perfect is in every way first". For Hegel it comes last (so history has importance. The potential that is actualized!). Kant can't prove that the perfect is real. Plato's "good" alludes him, except in that he contemplates his own conscience

Lordship and Bondage — Paine

Hegel was pointing out that slavery is a part of the human condition; however, he believed in the progress of history. Things can get bad, but they lead to what is best. I would say Hegel believed in Leibniz's best of all possible worlds, but in a world that evolves into the best, the perfect. A current contemporary philosopher who has similar views is Tim Freke

Kant's primary psychological observation is that we are separate from something about which we are very curious. Hegel tries to create thought spaces where we can satisfy our desires for complete systamization

What was Hegel's main response do you think to Kant's divided (by antimony?) world of phenomena and the beyond?

See Bxxiv — Mww

Thanks. I've read several places that Kant wanted to complete Descartes "universal algebra" agenda. That is, a system that can explain everything that humans can know. Leibniz tried this as well

Cool. You must be very much familiar with Hegel's system — Corvus

After getting better at reading his works, it felt as if i could predict what each next paragraph would be about. Or maybe it was a psychological trick, idk, but his arguing is dizzying, so it's best to keep it abstract and keep in mind the various uses of the words form, universal, particular, negative, positive, abstract, concrete, ratio, measure, essence, ect.

I believe the same was the fate of Kant and Leibniz. They never finished their systems to their own satisfaction.

I think Hegel was just philosophically spent by the end. Anything else he would have written would have been redundant in my opinion

As for Heidegger, his sense that time is alive and informs us of life reminds me of the turning wheels of the system of Hegel

Heidegger ends Being and Time on Hegel's analysis of time. He might have been referring to Hegel's Philosophy of Nature, the first pary of it about math, space, and time. Have you read one of Hegel's books? I've Phenomenology of the Mind about 7 times, and his "encyclopaedia' a few times. Sometimes there can be synchronisity in life

The world seems to be objects we perceive by our senses as extended. But there is so much more to experience than that. Phenomena is embedded in the pure extension stripped of color, smell, and taste (subjective?). There are all the ideas of philosophy living in the very being of things. Hegel presents the world as negative, moving, and as positive, objective, and Platonic on the flip side. Where does purpose come from? We don't know but it's there. Where does the extended come from for that matter

And yes, Hedeigger was a finitist Hegelian lol, imo

But my senses only feel in my visiom of sense. It takes abstract thought coupled withe imagination to think of something or someone not before you in their presence. We know each oher as humans, so then should we treat the body as phenomena or the thing in itself

If I think of the Big Bang for example, since there was no consciousness in the space-time reality at that time, to even think about it is to declare that a subjectless object existed once. People are very attached to being one with the past, as in evolution and cosmology (we are stardust?). It sems odd to take your own body thougy as phenomena instead of the intergal thing-in-itself, thrown through the chaotees of history.. Kant would have learned a lot from Hegel ii think, had he only lived longer

that knowing the truth has a spiritual dimension. There is an insight — Wayfarer

I use intuitiom and insight interchangeably. These leads to true knowledge though. Otherwise all is will. That knowledge is different from scientific knowledge. Will and reason are both necessary, so Schopenhauer and Hegel may have both been right

Truth is seen in that ignorance clouds the eyes of the mind that are, nonethless, seeing. Plato learned this from Socratea. There is a common stream running from Persia (Zorastrianism) to the Gnostics, neo-Platonists, and the followes of Mythra (largely Roman soldiers) which whispers of release from ideas that only know particular things as just that. Intuition is sometimes called the third eye... I was going to say something about Eckhart, but i have to go back and see my sources

What about this rock question however: are there rocks in existence when they are never seen? But what if they are heard, or tasted or smelled. Suppose there was one conscious being in the universe and his only sense was smell. If he smelled a "rock", does the rock exist? It seems individuation is on the part of the object presenting itself to me. Maybe truth i the reverse of science

So this discussions seems to boil down the idea that we experience the world but can't truly understand it.

People who enter my room experience a different room then the one i call my own space. Every object is understand by each person just as people are understood differently by different people.

I would ask you, what about the human faculties do you think enables them to arrive at an understanding of the true nature of reality? I think the hallmark of Kant is actually his intellectual humility. He is one who dares question what most take for granted — Wayfarer

What of truth for it's own sake? Why is desire for a knowledge wrong? What if we spent less thoughts on doubts and more on constructing what we can know. Truth is always seen. It's not always recogized